In view of the above, it would be appreciated if the moderators would go easy on enforcing the restrictions on discussing anything outside the SANParks boundaries.

One the one hand, it is not really helpful when people asking for advice get answers such as “that’s not a SANParks rest camp. You are not allowed to mention it here!”.

One the other hand, it is actually in SANParks' commercial interest to allow at least some discussion of alleged “competitors”. There are tourists who visit both private reserves and national parks in one trip, and need advice and help with their itineraries. Such people should be encouraged, not alienated. Then there are the private lodges that lease concessions in national parks. SANParks has a vested interest in their commercial success, as some of the money made flows into SANParks coffers. I do not see why these lodges cannot be mentioned, let alone discussed. Such limitations just pushes people into the arms of other fora where such restrictions do not exists.

Johan

We do allow people to discuss the concessions that are located within SANParks boundaries, for exactly the reason you give - it's within the commercial interests of SANParks to get people visiting them. The list of "permitted discussion" is contained in the link Matthys gave above.

We don't allow those outside the boundaries as SANParks gets no commercial reward from people visiting them. However we don't remove the mention of them, we just request that people PM the the person asking the question with relevant information. We don't want to advertise the competition.

Want to say Thank You or Well Done to a fellow 'mite? Why not nominate them for a Kudu?

Tinga and Narina are within Kruger. One is near the nursery and the other is past Skukuza airport. They are owned by the Moore family who also own Lion Sands which is in the Sabi Sands.So Tinga and Narina are entitled to state that they are in Kruger.

andrew1nesbitt wrote:In addition it is my understanding that areas bordering the Kruger, where fences have been removed follow strict and similar conservation policies as those found in the Kruger, to a point where Sanparks has the right to monitor and enforce conservation issues within a legally signed bipartite agreement

No, the private game reserves are free to set their own conservation policies, and they do. These policies also differ materially. For example, hunting is common in private reserves, but the policies vary widely between the reserves, as well as over time. Of those that allow trophy hunting, some have halted the hunting of big cats, for example. Then you get land owner hunting quotas, hunting for rations, etc. SANParks does not have any monitoring or enforcement rights. The law is (perhaps, hopefully) upheld by the provincial authorities of the provinces in which the private reserves are located. Helpfully, the Mpumalanga/Limpopo border cuts right through several of these private reserves.

But in any of those private reserves where fences with KNP have been removed hunting is allowed, or you say that in general terms?

It´s easy to get confused in this issue, I googled "greater kruger" and in page one of the search results there was Timbavati website, where they have this explanation (which doesn´t seem very accurate, I must say):

"The Greater Kruger National Park is a joint venture between Associated Private Nature Reserves and the Kruger National Park. Between them, the two reserves cover approximately 20 000 000 hectares.

Declared as an UNESCO ‘International Man and the Biosphere Reserve’, the Kruger National Park is one of the largest game reserves in Africa. It is situated across the Limpopo and Mpumalanga provinces of South Africa, and its borders stretch up to Zimbabwe in the north and Mozambique in the east. Back in 1898 it was known as the Government Wildlife Park. It later became the Sabi Game Reserve, and then the Kruger National Park in 1926.

Associated Private Nature Reserves is a conglomerate of privately owned nature reserves. It has over 20 members in its ranks including the Timbavati Reserve. In 1993, fences between Associated Private Nature Reserves and the Kruger National Park were removed to encourage wildlife migration, and the Greater Kruger National Park was born."

The last time I stayed at one of the private reserves, not in the KNP proper, but with the fences removed, the guide went to great length to explain that when the fences where removed agreements where signed covering issues for example - no hunting (maybe no commercial hunting), no introduction of new species, management of alien plants and rehabilitation. The example that was given was if an animal is injured, or sick, Sanparks has to be informed and appropriate action would be taken by Sanparks. In addition he indicated that Sanparks did carry out inspections - obviously all hear say - maybe he just wanted a big tip

pedro maia wrote:But in any of those private reserves where fences with KNP have been removed hunting is allowed, or you say that in general terms?

All the contiguous private reserves (i.e. those that border the KNP directly, and those that border those that border the KNP) allow hunting in one way or another.

It may well be less common now, but many lodges, including some very upmarket ones, would shoot game to feed their guests. There would be venison on the dinner menu night after night, and little did the unsuspecting tourists know that the very next morning they would be out viewing the bereaved relatives of the antelope or warthog they had just eaten.

Then there is ration hunting, generally done one a reserve-wide basis. Animals are shot, and the meat is distributed to staff at the lodges and farms as rations, along with bags of mielie meal.

Landowners are allocated quotas, usually for general game to shoot for the pot. Some reserves will also allocate a few trophy animals, say an elephant or two, to the highest bidder amongst the landowners.

Finally you get commercial trophy hunting, which includes all of the B5 (yes, also rhino) at some reserves.

pedro maia wrote:It´s easy to get confused in this issue, I googled "greater kruger" and in page one of the search results there was Timbavati website, where they have this explanation (which doesn´t seem very accurate, I must say)

It is inaccurate.

"Greater Kruger" is not a precise or officially defined term. If I were to try my hand at it, I would define it as follows:

Greater Kruger comprises of the Kruger National Park and all contiguous reserves.

That's to say, Greater Kruger includes the Kruger NP and all those reserves that border directly on the KNP and are not fenced off (e.g. the Timbavati), as well as all those reserves that border on the latter, and are not fenced of either (e.g. the Klaserie). Or to put it differently: the entire ecological unit where animals can move freely, whereof the KNP constitutes the greater part.

There are no doubt some who wish to include reserves that do not actually border the KNP or are fenced off, because as land or lodge owners they rightly perceive that there are commercial advantages to being associated with the KNP. Thornybush, Kapama, Karongwe, Selati and Bongani are all examples. Thornybush borders directly on the Timbavati, but Jersey Road runs between them, and is fenced on both sides. Bongani also shares a boundary with Kruger, but the two are separated by a road and a railroad, with fences on either side. Others are separated by larger tracts of land, or are on the other side of the red line. On that basis I would personally not included them, but others may beg to differ.

Johan

Last edited by johanrebel on Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

pedro maia wrote:But in any of those private reserves where fences with KNP have been removed hunting is allowed, or you say that in general terms?

All the contiguous private reserves (i.e. those that border the KNP directly, and those that border those that border the KNP) allow hunting in one way or another.

It may well be less common now, but many lodges, including some very upmarket ones, would shoot game to feed their guests. There would be venison on the dinner menu night after night, and little did the unsuspecting tourists know that the very next morning they would be out viewing the bereaved relatives of the antelope or warthog they had just eaten.

Then there is ration hunting, generally done one a reserve-wide basis. Animals are shot, and the meat is distributed to staff at the lodges and farms as rations, along with bags of mielie meal.

Landowners are allocated quotas, usually for general game to shoot for the pot. Some reserves will also allocate a few trophy animals, say an elephant or two, to the highest bidder amongst the landowners.

Finally you get commercial trophy hunting, which includes all of the B5 (yes, also rhino) at some reserves.

andrew1nesbitt wrote:The last time I stayed at one of the private reserves, not in the KNP proper, but with the fences removed, the guide went to great length to explain that when the fences where removed agreements where signed covering issues for example - no hunting (maybe no commercial hunting), no introduction of new species, management of alien plants and rehabilitation.

I cannot conclusively rule out the existence of such agreements, but I've never heard of any. The fact that hunting is common and widespread supports the conclusion that no agreements exist as far as that's concerned.

New species (as in not indigenous to the area) is not really a problem. The Lowveld has a full complement of game, there is little (commercial) incentive to introduce alien species. There are certain fenced areas smack bang in the middle of the private reserves where species such as sable are bred. The population density may be unnaturally high in such localities, but the species as such are not new.

Sabi Sand have been known to chuck in 600-odd blue wildebeest every now and then to feed the lions.

God knows that the private reserves could do with an agreement (or even better, legislation) on management and rehabilitation. They generally do really badly in that respect. Some are nothing more than glorified zoos, with water holes and dams on every corner, rampant bush clearing to improve the view, etc.

None of the above supports the existence of agreements of any kind.

andrew1nesbitt wrote:The example that was given was if an animal is injured, or sick, Sanparks has to be informed and appropriate action would be taken by Sanparks.

Definitely not. SANParks doesn’t do anything about sick or injured animals in its own national parks, they only intervene in the most exceptional cases. Private reserves do their own shooting, in certain cases a vet may be called in. If any official intervention is required, the provincial nature conservation or veterinary authorities will be called in.

andrew1nesbitt wrote:In addition he indicated that Sanparks did carry out inspections.

Any inspections would be the responsibility of the relevant provincial authorities. These are seriously underfunded and under-resourced.

Johan

Last edited by johanrebel on Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Staff at a game lodge which I shall not name in the private game reserve in question took some guests out for a bush walk last winter. What did they find? A rhino carcass minus the head. The animal had been trophy hunted on their farm, and the reserve management had not even bothered to inform them about it. Not beforehand, and not afterwards.

Reading though all these posts trying to understand what the Kruger or Greater Kruger is I get the impression that money making and satisfying the material needs of humans are very important and a priority, I may be wrong (as it is my personal opinion) but it seems to me the money making is more imporant than the welfare and the conservation of the animals and the nature who are regarded as commidities to sell. .

“Whether it's the best of times or the worst of times, it's the only time we've got.”